PDA

View Full Version : I Can Hear It Now...


Boogyman
09-30-2006, 10:45
What the die-hard Bush supporters are gonna say about this...

"It's old news"

"Woodward is a liar"

"Woodward is unpatriotic"

"He's just trying to sell books"

"This hurts America"

"It's just election-time smear tactics"

Or the all-time favorite:

"Everything is Clinton's fault"


Book says aide urged Bush to fire Rumsfeld

Woodward depicts feud between White House, military over Iraq policy

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s job security was questioned twice by former White House chief of staff Andrew Card, a new book says.

By William Hamilton

Updated: 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
Former White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq.

Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush to criticism.

Card tried again around Thanksgiving 2005, this time with the support of first lady Laura Bush, who, according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld's overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration in March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

The book is the third that Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, has written on the Bush administration since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The first two were attacked by critics of the administration as depicting the president in a heroic light. But the new book's title, "State of Denial," conveys the different picture that Woodward paints of the administration since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Excerpts of the book will be published in the Sunday and Monday editions of The Post.

Internal, public statements at odds
Woodward writes that there has been a vast difference between what the White House and the Pentagon knew about the situation in Iraq and what they have been saying publicly. In memos, reports and internal debates, administration officials have voiced their concerns about the conduct of the war, even while Bush and Cabinet members such as Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have insisted that the war was going well.

In May, Woodward writes, the intelligence division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff circulated a secret intelligence estimate predicting that violence in Iraq will not only continue for the rest of this year but also increase in 2007.

"Insurgents and terrorists retain the resources and capabilities to sustain and even increase current level of violence through the next year," said the report, which was distributed to the White House, the State Department and intelligence agencies.

The report presented a similarly bleak assessment of oil production, electricity generation and the political situation in Iraq.

"Threats of Shia ascendancy could harden and expand Shia militant opposition and increase calls for coalition withdrawal," the report said.

Several warnings on Iraq
Woodward writes that Rice and Rumsfeld have been warned repeatedly about the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

Returning from his assignment as the first head of the Iraq postwar planning office, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner told Rumsfeld on June 18, 2003, that the United States had made "three tragic mistakes" in Iraq.

The first two, he said, were the orders his successor, L. Paul Bremer, had given banning members of the Baath Party from government jobs and disbanding the Iraqi military. The third was Bremer's dismissal of an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term.

"There's still time to rectify this," Garner said. "There's still time to turn it around."

But Rumsfeld dismissed the idea, according to Woodward. "We're not going to go back," Rumsfeld said.

Bush
President Bush is portrayed as being stubbornly immune to warnings that things might not be going well in Iraq. According to published reports, Woodward describes Bush as “increasingly removed from reality.”
Other disclosures:

• In September 2003, Bush is reported as having ignored a warning from Robert Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, that tens of thousands more U.S. troops were needed to subdue the insurgency.

• In November 2003, Bush is quoted as having said: “I don’t want anyone in the Cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.”

• Bush regularly talks with Vietnam-era Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. The problem, Woodward said on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” is that “Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.”

A year later, Rumsfeld received even more blunt criticism from Steve Herbits, a longtime friend who, according to Woodward, has served as an informal adviser to Rumsfeld since he became defense secretary. In a seven-page memo in July 2004 titled "Summary of Post-Iraq Planning and Execution Problems," Herbits listed a series of questions for Rumsfeld:

"Who made the decision and why didn't we reconstitute the Iraqi Army?"

"Did no one realize we were going to need Iraqi security forces?"

"Did no one anticipate the importance of stabilization and how best to achieve it?"
"Why was the de-Baathification so wide and deep?"

He then described "Rumsfeld's style of operation," which he said was the "Haldeman model, arrogant," referring to President Richard M. Nixon's White House chief of staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman. "Indecisive, contrary to popular image. Would not accept that some people in some areas were smarter than he. . . . Trusts very few people. Very, very cautious. Rubber glove syndrome -- a tendency not to leave his fingerprints on decisions."

Woodward does not say how Rumsfeld responded.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15068379/

plinky
09-30-2006, 12:59
I`m definately not a Bush supporter but this is

http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif http://forum.m1911.org/images/smilies/dead_horse.gif

freesw
09-30-2006, 17:34
If the horse is truly beaten, why do so many continue to support The Bush administration and Rumsfeld's failing policies? Everyone with a stake in the outcome of the Iraq war (ie all Americans) really should see this:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-hearing.cfm?A=38

I saw the video on CSPAN. It is astonishing. Forget the Democrat Senators, just listen to the generals.

cowboy117
09-30-2006, 17:48
Woodward=snake!Helped to take down a great president:Nixon.Flame on!!!!!!!!!:lol:

freesw
09-30-2006, 17:51
You don't think Nixon's pattern of breaking the law had anything to do with it?
Nixon made his choices.

Seems in recent years it's become fashionable to defend presidential lawbreaking.

cowboy117
09-30-2006, 17:56
Wasn't that girl Nixon was with named Monica?Maybe Moronica.One of those.What's so bad about consorting with an intern?Much ado about nothing IMHO.:rolleyes:Hey Dick,mellow out and have a cigar!:o

Boogyman
09-30-2006, 18:11
They're running out of ways to defend the indefensible.

The manly thing to do would be just to say "Ok, ok, I was wrong to believe in Bush." No shame in that, they fooled a lot of people.

But the die-hards have nothing left now, except sniggering about Clinton/Monica and vainly trying to distract the focus away from the truth.

This whitehouse is finally coming apart at the seams, as anything built on lies is doomed to do eventually. Time to at least save a little dignity by jumping ship now, Bushies... :lol:

BlenderWizard
09-30-2006, 19:56
I don't even understand why it matters at this point. Bush is the president, and he is not eligible for re-election. He shall remain the President until his term ends or someone impeaches him and gets some pretty serious charges to stick, in which case Dick Cheney would take over.

Is that what you want?

Boogyman
09-30-2006, 20:13
I don't even understand why it matters at this point. Bush is the president, and he is not eligible for re-election. He shall remain the President until his term ends or someone impeaches him and gets some pretty serious charges to stick, in which case Dick Cheney would take over.

Is that what you want?
Actually, my guess is that Cheney would be impeached right along with Bush.

What I want is to see justice done. I want to see those responsible held accountable. I want to see the lies exposed and the liars that told them punished.

Only by cleaning our own house will we regain our honor and integrity. Only by removing the stain of dishonesty and corruption will we be able to hold our heads high again as Americans.

Now do you understand why it matters, Blender?

cowboy117
09-30-2006, 20:42
I don't even understand why it matters at this point. Bush is the president, and he is not eligible for re-election. He shall remain the President until his term ends or someone impeaches him and gets some pretty serious charges to stick, in which case Dick Cheney would take over.

Is that what you want?A voice of reason.[I'd still go hunting with him if he became President.Would look good on my resume!]

Boogyman
09-30-2006, 20:55
A voice of reason.[I'd still go hunting with him if he became President.Would look good on my resume!]
Go ahead and joke about it.

Have you read the "More News From Iraq" thread lately?

Yeah, they're just rollin' on the floor laughin' it up over there, too... <_<

plinky
09-30-2006, 21:31
Actually, my guess is that Cheney would be impeached right along with Bush.


Cheney is too smart to be impeached. And no, I don`t admire him.

cowboy117
09-30-2006, 22:08
Go ahead and joke about it.

Have you read the "More News From Iraq" thread lately?

Yeah, they're just rollin' on the floor laughin' it up over there, too... <_<I wasn't joking about it,it was a voice of reason.We are stuck with Bush,like it or not.I'm not a huge fan of his but like some of his policies[not the Iraq war,however.]What do we do,just leave?Maybe that would be the best thing;let them sort out their own problems.No easy answers at this time.I don't like to see the soldier's getting killed and injured any more than you do.It is a volunteer Army and they know what they are getting into or they would not enlist.When you enlist,there's always the chance of war.In a time of draft,it's a whole different ballgame.I know you were in 'Nam.Were you drafted or did you enlist?I'm just curious,not wanting to start a fight or anything.I enlisted and slipped in between Korea and 'Nam.Luck of the draw.On the Cheney matter:i would go hunting with him.

Boogyman
09-30-2006, 22:35
I was drafted. I was against the war at the time, but I didn't try to get out of going. Cheney got five deferments. You want to go hunting with a coward go right ahead.

I disagree that all those who enlisted knew what they were getting into when it comes to Iraq. Most of those who enlisted before the war started did so during peace time for the training and benefits, and many are National Guard reservists who never thought they'd be dodging IED's in Iraq.

Also in VN you had the option of serving more than one tour. In Iraq many soldiers are fighting their second, third, or even fourth tours mandatory.

Our soldiers and their families are making sacrifices and facing dangers that could have been avoided, if the Bushies had done things right. Yeah, I blame them, and I hope they are held accountable for what they've done. :angry:

Olds
10-01-2006, 10:11
I was drafted. I was against the war at the time

So now it comes out. Do you really think that because you where drafted that justifies you continual looking for something that is more than what is posted?

Now I understand your hate.

I truly piety you. BTW what unit etc. where you with? I would like to do a net search and see if I can find about your....service and what you personally did.

Please post the information so we can elevate you to a level higher than us. Thus granting us a reason to listen to your rants on just about every posting you do.

Please.......
Olds

Boogyman
10-01-2006, 10:40
So now it comes out.
What comes out? My being drafted to Vietnam is no secret here. Any fool can do a search on my posts and find several instances where I've talked about it.
Now I understand your hate.

I truly piety you.
Olds, you continually stick your nose into threads for the sole purpose of slinging crap at me. You do nothing but accuse me of this and that, make your judgements about my character, and challenge my motives. You bitch about people making "personal attacks" then turn around and attack me. Why don't you mind your own freaking business and f*ck off?
I would like to do a net search and see if I can find about your....service and what you personally did.
Who the hell do you think you are? You're going to try and pry into my private information now? Try it, and see how fast my lawyer is all over your sorry ass!

FYI I didn't do anything in VN except my job. No medals for bravery, no "special forces" operations, just a plain infantry grunt who got a Purple Heart for being dumb enough to get blown up by a booby-trap on patrol.
BTW what unit etc. where you with?
Look at my avatar, that's my brigade shoulder patch. Search my posts if you want the rest, you sure as hell aren't getting my service number (which is the same as my SS#) or any other personal infornation about me.

What the hell is your problem? You think you're the "Perfect Union Police" or what? You can dislike or even hate me if you want, but threatening to invade my privacy is WAY over the line!: angry: :angry: :angry:

I've tried several times to be freindly with you, only to have you turn on me and bite me on the ass. I thought we had "shaken hands" and forgiven each other, no hard feelings? Well I've had it with your B.S.! You have some serious personality problems, buddy! :wacko:

Bill
10-01-2006, 21:45
You guys are out of control.